<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2002 (5) TMI 219 - ITAT INDORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66935</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, determining that the assessee concealed income and provided inaccurate particulars. The validity of the assessment order based on a revised return was upheld, with the Tribunal finding the penalty proceedings to be correctly initiated. The burden of proof for concealment was placed on the assessee, who failed to demonstrate that the revised return was filed voluntarily. Additional evidence presented by the Department was deemed admissible, and the Tribunal concluded that the penalty was justified due to the non-voluntary nature of the revised return filing after detection of concealment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Mar 2011 12:16:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=105370" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (5) TMI 219 - ITAT INDORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66935</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, determining that the assessee concealed income and provided inaccurate particulars. The validity of the assessment order based on a revised return was upheld, with the Tribunal finding the penalty proceedings to be correctly initiated. The burden of proof for concealment was placed on the assessee, who failed to demonstrate that the revised return was filed voluntarily. Additional evidence presented by the Department was deemed admissible, and the Tribunal concluded that the penalty was justified due to the non-voluntary nature of the revised return filing after detection of concealment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66935</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>